Episode Transcript
Speaker 0 00:00:00 Okay, well, Jason, um, why don't you get started and I'm going to,
Speaker 1 00:00:04 Uh,
Speaker 0 00:00:05 Get, um, some more people in the room.
Speaker 1 00:00:08 Okay. So this is a two part, um, talk that I have and, uh, question and appeared that I have planned on why defeating Russia or helping Ukrainians defeat Russia is in America's self interest. So in this first part, what I intend to do is to, I have one purpose in this, in this first part, and that is to categorically establish why Russia is not just an adversary, is Russia is an enemy of America. Therefore it in our national self-interest to defeat Russia. And if we can defeat Russia through a proxy like Ukraine, it's fine. And then in the second part, that's towards the end of the month, I intend to show why America as the creator of the international liberal order that started after war Wari is in America's national self-interest to create that liberal order, uh, of which Russia is not a part can never be a part, at least not under that Vladimir Putin.
Speaker 1 00:01:16 So this is less about helping Ukrainians and more about destroying Russia. And as I said, if it can be done by proxy, um, and if we can use the Ukrainians to assist in this endeavor, then more power to us, but we need to also, and I'm gonna make a huge point of this. We need to destroy not just the regime of Putin, but to punish through ruthless. I think brinkmanship you the average Russian citizen, um, who put him in power in the first place and, uh, have kept him there by God, his rapacious, uh, cultural nationalistic, expansionist policy. Uh, many of the Russians themselves are even more culturally nationalistic, expansionist, and rapacious and dream of reclaiming a, a great holy mother, Russia, more than Putin himself. Uh, we know that sanctions will not hurt Putin personally. So there are, um, they're there really sanctions are there to hurt the people as they should when, and, and when enough has become enough, they will find a way to rid themselves of Putin.
Speaker 1 00:02:33 So I, I refer to the, the Russian people who put him there in the first place have kept him there as Putins willing executioners. They are killers by conviction, but first I must show a of Putin and Russia is our enemy and why it is a national security threat to the United States. And why strategically it's important to help any semi free country engage in a war against Russia that Russia has initiated to win that war, uh, unprovoked it's in our interest to do so. So the first proof that I, that I would like to draw attention to is that the Russian government interfered in the 2016, us presidential elections with the goal of hiring a campaign of hill Clinton, uh, and boosting the candidacy of Donald Trump, um, and thereby increasing political and social discord in the United States. This has been ratified by the us intelligence community.
Speaker 1 00:03:34 Um, the, um, the PI's work taken over by 2017 by former FBI director, Robert Mueller, uh, who led a special counsel investigation until March, 2019. He concluded that the Russian interference was sweeping and systematic, and that it violated us criminal law indicted 26 Russians to citizens and three Russian organizations. And the investigation also led indictments and conviction of, uh, Trump campaign officials associated and associated Americans on unrelated charges. So the special counsel's report made public in August of 2019 examined numerous contact between the Trump campaign and Russian of Russian officials. Uh, it did conclude that the, the Trump campaign welcomed the Russian activities and expand expected to benefit from them, but there was of course, insufficient evidence to bring conspiracy or coordination charges against Trump or himself. So I, I've not, I'm gonna talk a little bit about what is so nefarious and evil about interfering in the campaign and why that ought to be interpreted as an act of war against the American people.
Speaker 1 00:04:56 Um, the second way in which Russia, uh, has shown itself to be an enemy of the people, is that there is new evidence that show that Russia, um, interfered also in the 2020 elections, uh, to support president Trump's reelection while also Medling in the democratic primaries to help Bernie Sanders. And this is coming from the Brennan center for justice, um, that there all sorts of CRE Kremlin lane companies behind the influence that targeted the 2016 elections that also targeted the 2020 elections. Um, there's a team called project data, digital ad tracking analysis that came up with some very, very starting con conclusions, um, that showed that, um, Russian interference in the 2016 and 2020 elections had taken on about 20, 75,000 posts, um, from Facebook and Instagram and replace them with Russian bots. Um, this is just skimming the, the iceberg. So for me to go through this report would take up way too much time.
Speaker 1 00:06:12 So I would just, um, encourage people to, to look at the brand center court. Um, the other proof that I would advance to show that Russia is an enemy of the incidents, is that Russia, according to the cybersecurity report issued by the department of justice, Russia has carried out 20 years of cyber attack against the United States of America. And we all are of course, aware of the recent cyber tax against 18,000 public and private sector users of solar winds or network, uh, the Texas based company, which allowed Russia to hack into Microsoft of Intel, Cisco, uh, the treasury justice, the energy department, the Pentagon and paradoxically. I want you to say ironically, um, C I S a the cybersecurity and inter, um, security agency that is designed to prevent these sorts of things from happening. So the, there have been a consistent pattern of cyber tax that Russia has inflicted against the United States since Vladimir Putin.
Speaker 1 00:07:30 One could say before that, but we have proof categorical proof, um, of cyber tax against our institutions against private C is initiated by the futon regime. Um, in 2008, a Russian hijacking group called Turla began attacking military systems using deception back doors root takes and infecting government websites. And this is all coming from the rush, the justice department. Okay. Um, so, so those three, I offer I'm gonna offer some more in part two, but those three, I think are enough to establish that our allies don't do those sorts of, or commit those sorts of actions against us. And I think the violation of electoral process is a declaration of war because it is an invasion inter sovereign and autonomous fear with the willful intention to compromise and sabotage the informed intentions and will of the people, uh, or freedom of conscience and the concomitant judgment and actions proceeding from that faculty, um, a, the right to conscious conscience gets thwarted.
Speaker 1 00:08:45 Therefore, the sovereignty and the ownership we have, um, in our person is in a deep manner, appropriated by a foreign power. I think they're on the same moral standing as the January 6th insurrectionists, many of whom are facing trial and, and some have been sentenced. So Russia, I think, has to be punished. Um, so we could start with the least punitive and work her way up to what I call the hierarchy of annihilation. Uh, so one thing that can be done is to, and we've already seen this occurring, um, this week with the leaders of both Sweden and Finland, who, uh, who have said that, uh, prime minister finished prime minister, Santa Marin, and Sweden's prime minister mag and Anderson, who said that everything changed when Russia invaded and Finland and Sweden will now be seeking membership in NATO is to expand NA eastward. Right? So one of the greatest ShipIts I think that has existed is that NATO's expansion is the cause of Putin's, uh, discontent in fact way before NATO existed, existed, going back to the 19th century, Russia had an autocrat, it had repression, it had, Meris had suspicion of foreigners and the west.
Speaker 1 00:10:09 Uh, this is a Russia that, you know, according to the Russian, the Stalinist expert, whom I've just, I, I love reading his work. Steven Kotkin has said, this is a rush that we know, and NATO is not a militaristic expansionist, um, phenomenon. It is a defensive phenomenon that is meant to, to, to protect, uh, the Baltic states and Europe in general from expansion is them. So one could say that NATO expansion has put us in a better place to deal with this historical pattern in Russia that we're seeing today, uh, where would PO B we, the bolt bolted bolt states B were not for NATO. So one way to sort of corner the bully and two, um, <affirmative> and, and to, and to surround him is to do exactly what Sweden and Finland are in the process of doing that is the, that that is pushing NATO, um, eastward, uh, is to expand NATO, NATO, uh, membership to those countries that wanted, and that meet the, the CRI the various criteria, uh, uh, NATA has never threatened Russia, right, as it acts as, as I said, a defense against Russian aggression.
Speaker 1 00:11:25 Um, and now as a result of its threats against fin and Sweden, it has threatened Putin has threatened fin, fin and Sweden that if it dares, uh, to join NATO, he will come after them. Right. So, um, they'll be seeking, um, membership. The third, the second way of sort of defeating Russia is to double increase or double increase. The, the sanctions that is we've already BA um, banned, uh, Russia from the society for worldwide interbank, financial tele, telecommunications, swift crippling its ability to trade with most of the world. I would say we continue along that route. Uh, but the most punitive S and is, um, technology transfer that is let's starve them of all high tech, um, high tech that is encouraging, forcing the commerce department to deplete and deny rush of American software equipment. And to have an enforce that can create a sort of technological wasteland in that country and hurt the regime and its people, uh, his willing execution is.
Speaker 1 00:12:44 Um, um, and I think that these sanctions, if, if accompanied by a sort of like a tariff relief, Vivi allies will bring a Russian people <affirmative>, um, and those who support him and his policies to what I call, uh, using a strategic strife and concomitant backlash, um, I would say that we also bring on the make fighter jets and as much aid to, to Ukraine and commit as much troops along every threatened border in the Ukraine, let us hope that Biden can do what Kennedy did in 1962, when he faced off Kris Kev and looked him, I looked him, you know, item eyeballed him down. Uh, and the Soviet good government basically said, you know, uh, we will give, um, so we have given new order to dismantle the arms, which you described as offensive and to, and to create and return them to the Soviet union.
Speaker 1 00:13:47 Um, we need to think this divest ourselves of this notion that, uh, all these actions that we will take against Russia will bring about world war three and that two nuclear honors. He's not crazy. He's on a, and he's not on a suicidal mission. He wants glory power, and he wants his empire back. So I think tougher sanctions on Russia and on the energy companies, um, is, uh, is as, is, are very important. Uh, when you look at the revenue numbers that Putin received last year versus this year, just astronomical, all that money goes towards killing the Ukrainians. We should either punish I don't, well, I don't think we can punish our allies, but we should also either, um, reprimand, Germany very seriously for making their new Nordstrom to deal in 2018 with Germany, uh, quite obvious for the repercussions that we're seeing, right? No, they kind of got a little bit too intimate.
Speaker 1 00:14:48 It kind of sold out, uh, too intimate with Germany. Um, fortunately we are not in that position. In 2019, we became a net exporter of all, all products, including both refined petroleum products and crude oil. Um, so we could help out our European allies in that respect. Um, and in fact, the white house state announce on March 25th, that United States will rapid increase its exports of liquified natural gas to Europe, as Germany of European unions, try to diminish their dependency on Russia, Russian few fossil fuel. And that by 23rd of the us plants to send 50 billion cubic meters of gas to Europe directly. Um, so those are some of the remarks that I wanted to make. Um, let me see if I have any more, cuz what I've been talking for 15 minutes, I want to have their enough time. Um, I, I, I just cannot emphasize how strongly, uh, it is to regard Russia as an enemy when the evidence is there, that it did interfere in our elections.
Speaker 1 00:16:08 This is part of what Russia, this might not be any of our business. One could say, but it is when Russia as its mind of destiny to go around undermining democratic elections around the world, it has done so in other democracies. And, uh, one could sort of systematically, I could do this in another talk systematically show the countries in which Russia has the affairs interfered in democratic elections and, and how this could interfere with our national security interests, Vivi those countries, but we'll stick for no. And just show that interfering with the autonomous will of a people, the American people is a declaration of war against this country. Um, you don't do that sort of thing and with impunity and expect to get away with it. Um, the other thing that I wanted to say to wrap up, um, in closing is that Steven coat can makes a very interesting point when he says that for I'm wanna quote from his, from one of his, uh, articles, he says for half a million, for, for half a million, for half a millennium, Russian foreign policy has been characterized by soaring ambitions that have exceeded the country's capabilities beginning with the reign of Ivan and terrible.
Speaker 1 00:17:38 In the 16th century, he says, Russia managed to expand at an average rate of 50 square miles per day. For thousands of years eventually covering one sixth of the earth and mass. And you go on this and you go, so this is the question that was asked of him and by David Resnick, and David says, you go on there to the, to describe fleeting moments of Russian. Then the first during the reign of Peter, the great and Alexander, the first picture of Napoleon, and then Stalin's, um, victory. And this is according to cooking. Part of Russia's mythology as itself as an invincible great power that cannot be shackled, excuse me, by any institution, by any sort of regulatory body such as find in the EU or even by NATO and what you have in power, he thinks is, and I agree I concur is, is, is, is a death spot making decisions completely by himself who does not think of your Ukraine as a real country or the Ukraine in people as a real people, but as one with the Russians.
Speaker 1 00:18:59 Um, so there's more that I could say about, and maybe this will come out in the question and answer here, cuz I don't wanna take up too much time talking, but I'm serious. Someone said to me in an interview gave recently about this topic, the Russian people are lovely. The Russian people are wonderful. And I said, yeah, I'm sure a lot of them are. I just don't know too many wonderful people who elect a death spot and a tyrant and a rapacious, um, expansionist, he human power. Who's Ray actually went up, uh, tremendously when he began the, uh, the invasion and the war against the Ukraine who know, and I'm not back any of this propaganda nonsense who know exactly what his expansion is, uh, ambitions are all about because they themselves Harbor such impulses and goals and aspirations to recreate the Soviet union. Uh, they themselves don't don't respect the borders of the world war II, the borders that were drawn after world war II, but even the borders prior to world war or two, which would put Poland at great risk.
Speaker 1 00:20:19 So I think that part of, I understand why president Biden has to go on TV and say to the Russian people, this has nothing to do with you, either a philosopher as a public intellectual, don't have to abide by that kind of silly rhetoric. All sanctions are gay or towards hurting an economy. And it's always the people who are hurt. And in this case, I think the Russian individuals, the Russian citizens who support Putin have, are psychically in infantile and have not achieved any semblance of political maturity. And before they can be brought within a crucibles, I would think even of civilizational maturity, uh, if you're going to any, any citizenry that uses to elect a death spot and an autocrat, uh, and keep him in power is not a citizenry. I think that has achieved any modicum of political maturity, let alone civilizational maturity. And so the, the idea that we have nothing against Russian P people is a bunch of in the same way that although Hitler was barely elected to the rash, um, we, we, we still, in some sense, realized that the German people were responsible for, um, the, uh, the knots, the, the, the, the tragedy spot by the nothi. All right. Uh, much more that I can say is much more than I think, but I will stop here.
Speaker 2 00:21:59 Yeah. I have a few questions whenever.
Speaker 0 00:22:01 No. Okay. You're, there's a fourth in line, so yeah, we, you've got a few, um, others front of you and, but, uh, thank you for raising your hand. I wanna encourage others in the audience. Um, please jump in, ask questions, um, share your thoughts. Agree, disagree. Please do so respectfully. Uh, one of the things that's unique about the Atlas society is we welcome and embrace open debate and discussion. Um, and, uh, this is actually a topic where our scholars are not in a uniform agreement, so we are gonna be having, um, other forums both here on clubhouse, as well as on our, um, our weekly webinar lineup to, to kind of air those different perspectives. But first I'll get to my partner here. Clubhouse partner, Scott.
Speaker 3 00:22:56 Hi there. Uh, good topic. Thank you. Um, just a quick question, just from a practical perspective, even if, you know, I remember, uh, Obama saying 10 years ago that basher odds days are numbered and you know, he's still in power. And so, you know, just from negotiating, is it best to say that regime change is our goal because then, you know, there's no incentive for him to ever negotiate with us?
Speaker 1 00:23:27 Well, I don't know that it would be prudent to announce. I think critics of that notion are correct. I, I'm not sure that would be prudent to actually announce that regime change is, uh, I think we can act, uh, secretly and operationally as if regime change is our goal. I don't know if it's prudent from an intelligence point of view to go around stating that I think that's just not prudent for a number of reasons, but we can certainly on the basis of, in a military fashion and a, you know, um, you know, from an intelligence point of view, go around doing that, I've been doing, you know, a lot of rethinking about what constitutes extra judicial killings. And we it's, you know, it violates international law, but, um, there is something to be said, and of course would be, it would not be in the interest of the United States to talk about, um, that sort of thing publicly, but that's also one option that could be investigated and pursued by the CIA, um, and the intelligence organs of the us government. Uh, but no, it wouldn't be pro. And for us to go about talking about regime change openly, we could covertly pursue such an operation or such, such an idea, but the various reasons, uh, is just not Prudential for us to, to talk about it that way. I don't, I don't see what, what there is to gain from open in stating that we are seeking regime change.
Speaker 0 00:25:13 Gotcha. Gotcha.
Speaker 6 00:25:15 Yeah. So it's interesting, uh, to hear the different scholars from Atlas society. Talk about this, cuz I've heard, uh, I've heard Richard, I've heard Rob and now I'm hearing you Jason, talk about this and the opinions are, uh, are wildly diverse. So I can't wait until you guys can share a stage and, uh, and kind of hash out some of this stuff. But one of the questions that I have is while I agree that Putin is a monster and, uh, you know, his acts are just it's naked, aggression needs to be dealt with. I think these are pretty obvious things. Um, the question is the how, and, and I think some of the things that you point out are not necessarily the ideas that come first to mind to me. And I, I would just think that, uh, looking at this, putting on my objective lens and saying that, uh, you know, what's in the rational best interest of the oligarchs, right?
Speaker 6 00:26:08 Uh, it certainly wouldn't be the collapse of, of, uh, of, of Russia. And is there a way that pressure could be put on the power brokers rather than the average people that would, that would be able to, uh, cause them to do regime change? So we don't have to get our hands dirty in this mess. Um, because I, I, I think, I think you and I, I would like the same thing and we would like to see these barbaric ideas that they have and, and, and the expansionist ideas that they have, um, you know, uh, uh, checked, but there's also a, a part of me that's thinking, you know, time is going to defeat the Russians because, uh, you know, just with their birth rates alone in 150 years, there won't be any Russian people. Uh, and, and, and so this is just a mathematical, uh, equation of, you know, they, they don't have a birth rate to sustain. Uh, they've got what, 141 million people in Russia and have got a declining birth rate, uh, definitely by, uh, uh, uh, 2200. There is no more Russians. And, uh, I'm just wondering, is, is there a different way that we could hold things off by putting pressure on the oligarchs?
Speaker 1 00:27:19 Well, I don't think their mutual exclusive, right. So I think in the moral division of labor, um, labor can occur on multiple levels. I think you're right though. It's, it's not the Z generation in Russia. That's out there waving patriotic nationalistic flags calling for the, the, I think president Biden was right, the genocide, he used the word, I'm glad he upped the, the, the, the moral tenure of the language and used the word genocide it's a that's taking place. Um, so I think that, that in the moral division of labor, multi it can work, can be done on multiple levels. It's not an either or a category, but I think that enormous pressure has to be placed on the Russian citizenry, the Russian people who, uh, for, uh, Putin Putin is still a national icon. Uh, they've got to be retrained, they've got to be re socialized the hard way they've got to, uh, be broken down.
Speaker 1 00:28:18 Uh, they've got to be brought to the brink of absolute destitution then, and only then, uh, will we see some kind of, hopefully some kind of, um, internal change, um, that, uh, either through a palace quo or through an outright revolution, um, but the notion of saving the average Russian citizen is not very, very high on my list because the average Russian citizen is Ely. I responsible for the, both the election and the maintenance of, of Vladimir Putin. So we are not just attacking, or we're not just saying that ID. I'm not just saying that the regime itself must be destroyed. I'm saying just psycho is the Papa saying, you know, gasoline and alcohol just don't mix Russia and United States just don't mix that country has to be brought. That has to be, has to be completely destroyed its political culture that is, has to be completely destroyed and remolded before it can be inducted into the Pantheon of the se of European states. Um, and it has to start, I think, ultimately with the citizenry
Speaker 8 00:29:39 Clark,
Speaker 9 00:29:42 Uh, yes. Um, professor, I, I just respectfully disagree with, uh, a lot of what you've said. Uh, so I would just start by saying that, you know, 20 years ago when w Bush was president Russia and the us were allies, and, you know, Putin was famously the first foreign leader after nine 11 to contact, uh, w Bush and offer support. In fact, Putin wanted to have an Alliance, uh, in a war on, uh, war, on terrorism with the us, uh, and in fact, Russian intelligence, uh, is what helped the us and those first few months back in, again, this is 20 years ago, of course, uh, it was Russian intelligence that helped the us do very well, at least in the beginning of the Afghan war 20 years ago. So, and it was the us actually, <laugh> that rejected, uh, Russia's friend request. Uh, in fact, uh, in 2004, if you look at the, uh, the specifics, uh, the us actually some Islamist forces, uh, in Chenia.
Speaker 9 00:30:46 And of course, you know, as an old spook, uh, Putin knew this, I mean, there's no way you can hide something like that from Putin. So I would just argue that, you know, this is a country that has 7,800 nuclear weapons and, and, you know, so you, you don't want to just gratuitously, uh, you know, disrespect them and, and that's basically what we've done. And of course, uh, as other people have pointed out, you know, we have, we basically pushed them closer to China and India and Iran, but by not basically dealing with them now, you know, maybe you don't have to be best friends with the country like this, but, but they, they do have those weapons and, and, you know, I mean, and they will use them. Uh, and I think they, they definitely will use them if, if they feel threatened. Uh, and you, you know, you mentioned sanctions and I could only just wrap up by, by asking you, uh, when have sanctions ever worked to got to, to let a people to overthrow their ruler.
Speaker 9 00:31:43 Uh, they didn't work can Cuba, you know, for 60 years, they didn't work in Iraq with Saddam muan. They haven't worked with, uh, in Iran and, and actually, you know, sanctions Putin is a very wily politician. He's managed to convince the average Russian, uh, voter. And I think this is why he's so popular that the sanctions are USS fault, not his, so the Russian people for the last, since we've had pretty strong sanctions on Russia for at least 10, 15 years, I would say probably since the Georgia war of 2008. So, uh, Putin is a very wildly politician. He's been able to convince the average Russian, uh, and, and I think with some justification that, you know, know the fact that they're hurting economically, that's the result of the us, not him. So, so I guess I, I just don't know all, all the people who wanna wanna use sanctions. I, I, I think most of them are, Kasians, that's kind of a Kasian approach to, to, to foreign policy, uh, sanctions and, and blockades and, and, you know, currency manipulation. Uh, I just liked, you know, when has that ever worked?
Speaker 1 00:32:49 Well, sanctions never worked in against Iran because look, uh, Iran and, and, and Russia are strategic partners and Iran trades like L with our European allies, which we should punish our European find a way of punishing our European allies for sanctions never worked in Cuba because Cuba, of course, I grew up 90 miles from Cuba. Uh, Cuba always had the patronage and the economic buffer of the Soviet union. So, um, until, until quite recently, and, and, and so sanctions never worked in Cuba because Cuba always had, um, a bailout or a welfare, a massive, big mama welfare state to take care of it. Um, and China is always going to be there to, to, to buffer any kind of sanctions that we level level against, against Russia. So another whole discussion has to factor around our next big adversary enemy, which might not even be Russia.
Speaker 1 00:33:47 It might be China and how we deal with China. Um, so sanctions have never worked because we've never had the ability to sort of, um, coalesce or allies or to Joel, or to force our allies into a unified, comprehensive agreement into not trading with those who are even their enemies themselves. So if you look at the Europeans, the deals that the Europeans have cut with Iran, um, that have only helped to bolster, um, uh, their uranium pro project, uh, of course the sanctions are not going to work with, uh, Iran when you have countries like Germany and, and France and so on trading. Uh, so the sanctions have to be done the proper way, and we, that's why I said, you know, we have got to somehow get our European allies to continue, uh, the sanctions against, against Russia. And after six months or seven months cave in, um, we've, we've got to help them and, and, and keep them committed to their ideals, but sanctions sanctions can work. Um, if, if, if consistently and properly applied. Um, so Europe, Russia, isn't aging, uh, the people are used to hardships, but, um, yeah. Did you wanna say something?
Speaker 1 00:35:12 So I think, yeah, I will just, I will just end here by saying that the, the you're right, the sanctions that we have applied in all those cases, didn't work because of an inability or an unwillingness for our own allies in Europe to not go along with us in the sanctions that we've applied against those countries that you pointed out to, uh, like Iran, uh, Cuba always had a buffer in the Soviet union, and China is always there that monster of a nation, uh, to, to, to, to, to back Russia and to back, um, Iran in other countries. So we, we also would have to have a separate discussion about how do we deal with China. Uh, we can't discuss us San. I agree with you. One thing I will agree with you on is that we cannot discuss sanctions against Russia without having a con a conversation about how to concomitant deal with China, who is more than an adversary is an outright enemy of the United States of America.
Speaker 10 00:36:19 Right. I don't.
Speaker 1 00:36:21 Okay. Okay, go ahead.
Speaker 10 00:36:24 Uh, Karina, thanks for your patience.
Speaker 11 00:36:26 No problem. Hi, thank you for inviting me to this stage. Um, I just wanted to say, uh, how happy I was to hear everything that professors said. Uh, so clearly, especially about the responsibility of, uh, Russia. It's like a really huge, uh, topic right now in the Russian speaking rooms where I'm, uh, you know, spending my time on clubhouse. So basically I completely agree with everything that professor hill, uh, said right now about breaking up Russia and about destroying completely put into regime. So that goes without saying also, uh, to add that a lot of people here on clubhouse from Beru, Kazakhstan Chi, all the other countries around that are somehow in under the influence are under the influence of Russia. They're just waiting for their moment to break out, break from, uh, Russia as well. And they are, most of them, even all bill Russians are against, uh, Putin's regime and against what is happening now with Belarus as well.
Speaker 11 00:37:32 So that's, that kind of goes without saying, but I was especially happy to hear somebody's very clear position on the responsibility of average Russians, because basically none of them is taking the responsibility for, uh, what's happening to them because they kind of argue, uh, argue that they don't have freedom of speech. They don't have, uh, you know, they, they have, uh, the threat of jail time and so on. So they cannot say anything. Otherwise they will be jailed and cannot, uh, say anything. So even like, I don't know, this is like a million dollar question, how much, uh, I mean, percentage wise, how many people are against and how many people are four Putin, but probably the majority, as you said, the majority are, uh, four Putin. Um, but even those who are they say, we don't take any responsibility. We don't have any responsibility.
Speaker 11 00:38:28 We refuse the responsibility is on the west, and we cannot say anything. Otherwise we will be jailed. And it's the responsibility of the west to deal with, uh, our regime. So we ASRA, I'm actually Ukrainian. I didn't introduce myself. I'm Ukrainian. I live in Vienna in Austria, but, uh, I was born and lived in Ukraine for a long time. And, uh, all of the Ukrainians will be happy to hear professor hill just said, uh, we are all of the same position. So, and now we are all arguing somehow, like, who has, if, if the Russians have the responsibility or not. So thank you very much for your clear position on this.
Speaker 0 00:39:11 Thank you arena. I've been enjoying seeing you in the audience, in our discussions, and it's, um, fun to have you come and join us up on stage. I hope it won't be the last time. Uh, and I will also go ahead and pin in, um, this room, the video that the at society did on my name is Ukraine. Um, and we're going to have the Ukrainian language version of that very soon. So thank you, Jacque. Thanks for your patience. What an interesting profile you have, Jacque, do you wanna unmute yourself? All right. He may have stepped away, Emma.
Speaker 13 00:40:02 Hello. Um, uh, to what, uh, oh, I'm not sure how to pronounce her name Irina, is that how, uh, thanks. Um, to her, uh, comment about, um, uh, average normal citizens responsibility. I'm kind of confused to that because if, if Putin is an evil dictator and he, he will put people in jail and, you know, have these repercussions for people speaking out, then we can't really blame normal average Russian citizens for not speaking out for fear of their lives. Right? So I'm not sure if we should blame Russian people for not speaking out. If, if Putin is this evil guy that will, you know, put your family, whole family in jail and all that stuff, um, and about sanctions I'm, I'm just like Clark said, actually I came in when Clark was talking about sanctions and how they don't work. I feel like they not only don't work, they don't actually hurt the person you're trying to hurt like Putin. Isn't gonna be suffering. It's the normal average citizen. That's gonna be suffering and they'll be thinking, well, why does the west, why does the United States wanna punish us the normal citizens? So I'm actually against, um, sanctions because it hurts the average person. They're the one suffering and not, not the people on the, the top 1% that are making the decisions. And there needs to be another way. If, if you want a regime change, then putting sanctions and hurting the average person to you.
Speaker 1 00:41:55 Well, you came in a little bit late Emma, because I, I, I, there are two responses I would have. One is, um, if he's such an evil person that, um, stifles the rights of people, why is his popularity rating so high? Why did they go up exponentially? After he invaded Ukraine starts the war. He was his, he achieved heroic status. So if he's going to put people in prison, and if he's going to, in some sense, uh, jail them for dissenting, why keep them such a man in power? And as I said, yes, the average citizen should be heard to the extent that such an average citizen is a supporter of Russia. The sanctions are not just meant. The S are not meant to hurt Putin's pockets. He will not suffer. He will not be able to not buy bread and sugar and, and flour. It is the average citizen who put him there and has kept him there and will make sure that he remains in power till 2036, who should bear the suffering, who should who's complic it in every atrocity that he's inflicted in.
Speaker 2 00:43:00 Are you serious right now? Holding the people responsible.
Speaker 1 00:43:04 I am deadly serious as a heart attack.
Speaker 13 00:43:05 That's that's what I don't agree with. You shouldn't hold.
Speaker 2 00:43:08 This is preposterous. Are you going to hold the American people for million dead Iraqis and Afghanis? I mean, this is, this is a terrorist tactic, Mr. Jason, I am very appalled to hear what you're saying. You're supposed to be an intellectual, sir.
Speaker 1 00:43:25 Well, what are you appalled by?
Speaker 2 00:43:27 I beg your pardon.
Speaker 1 00:43:28 We were engaged. We, we, we were engaged in a war against the country, and we thought that war and the, a purpose of a war is, is to win the war. Um, Sadam hue was, has made serious threats against the United States of America. He was a cancer in that region. Um, the war in Afghanistan was completely justified, um, for various reasons, the way that war was fought was, uh, was ridiculously fought. But, uh, we fought two justified wars.
Speaker 2 00:44:02 Yeah. And so is what the Putin is doing. Here's what is justified against Ukraine?
Speaker 1 00:44:07 No, it's not, no,
Speaker 2 00:44:08 Not according to you. It's not. According to me fail the perspective of the other side, that is your problem. And you lack intelligence because you cannot perceive the world's view of the
Speaker 1 00:44:19 Look. I'm not going to allow you to take your sophomore like high school opinion and elevate them to human knowledge, by assuming that I don't have intelligence. So we have to start this conversation at a different level, or, you know, you just, you, you can't be a part of this conversation. Uh, so yeah, goodbye.
Speaker 0 00:44:36 Well, I'm not saying goodbye. I just, um, Jacque moved you to the audience. Uh, I hope you will stay for this conversation as well as some of the other conversations that we're going to have as, uh, Roger and as Clark, um, and others have observed, there are different perspectives within the ATLA society, and it's part of the principle that we uphold to, to air them. Um, but, uh, we wanna be respectful to all of our faculty, including, uh, professor Jason Hill. Who's put some work into his position and, uh, has thought deeply about foreign policy over the decades. Um, and it's okay to disagree and ask questions, but let's try to do it so that we can all be heard. Uh, John, John Lang.
Speaker 14 00:45:26 Hello. Um, my questions, a general one, I hear talk of sanctions quite often in discussions of foreign policy. And it's all very vague as to just what they are, and obviously they're different in different contexts and applications, but, um, it's a little bit like, uh, somebody saying they're for free trade when they really mean, well, yeah, they're for free trade, but with, uh, the particular, uh, uh, tariffs that we want to benefit this or that industry industry or harm this or that competitor. And, um, so the word sanctions is, uh, terribly ambiguous for me. And, uh, then there's the other aspect of it, which is what does it cost us? I mean, is part of the problem with the weakness of the dollar, the fact that we're running around applying sanctions all over the place, how much do they cost? I don't know what sanctions are. Thank you.
Speaker 1 00:46:36 I did spend some time spelling out what I meant by sanctions. One of, you know, the, the, the most, um, forceful forms of sanctions I talked about was, um, technology transfer, um, starving them of high tech that is denying them American made software equipments and products and affects, you know, every important, um, and having an enforceable mechanism for doing that. So you sort of create a technological wasteland in Russia, if you deny them American made software, equipment and products, um, president, um, president Biden just signed to law, um, um, of, I think by executive order stopping the importation of, of Russian oil into, into this country. So, uh, there are, there are specific, uh, sanctions that I discussed at the start of this talk. And I don't know that we go around the world imposing sanctions and everyone, I, I, one would have to get a little bit more specific about that. Um, we impose sanctions for moral reasons. America usually does not arbitrarily or egregiously, um, gratuitously rather go about imposing sanctions on the world. We do usually for very specific reasons against, or adversaries or against countries that betray, um, or national interests by, by acting in a manner that, um, are inimical to self-interest. So, um, and I, I had spoken earlier, which I, I don't have the time to repeat about reasons why sanctions hadn't worked against Iran and hadn't worked against Cubo.
Speaker 14 00:48:16 Yes, my apologies, Jason, because I did join the discussion late, but I really, my comments were really in general, when I hear discussions of sanctions, you know, from the sort of state department type of position, it's never hooked up to specific actions. Like for instance, I mean, there are specific companies that are going to be hurt by what you just mentioned. That is you can't sell your product into Russia. You may have had a contract already, and they, now you have to cancel it. Or maybe you are in the business of importing oil and now you're harmed by it. I would hope that in the public discourse that there would be specificity attached to any reference to sanctions. It sounds good, but I don't know what it is. Thank you,
Speaker 1 00:49:17 Right. Well, I, I, I mean, I'll just briefly say, of course there are going to be harms done and it's gonna be harmful, but you know, it, it, in the same way that you, you know, we, we don't, uh, do we don't commit trees and you don't, we don't, and I'm gonna be very specific here. And I mean, that's quite seriously, uh, if you're a business person and you wish to do business with an enemy of the state, then you relinquish your citizenship. You don't do business with and vote and declared enemy of the United States of America while else still enjoying citizen American citizenship. That's an act of treason, as far as I'm concerned, you, you, you don't aid in the, at the murderous, um, impulses and homicidal impulses that a country has towards your own country. Um, you can do so as a citizen of another country, but, uh, not under the protection of, of, or under the premature of, of us citizenship.
Speaker 13 00:50:16 I, I think that thing is, um, as Clark said, sanctions have not worked say in Venezuela either and North Korea, either the regimes there are still intact. So if they don't work and they only hurt the people there, and we can all agree that north Korean people they're innocent, like they did not elect Kim Jung, right. So why are we punishing those people? And just the, the, the leaders there, the 1% are to doing fine is the citizens there that are dying of starvation.
Speaker 0 00:50:53 Thank you, Emma. Um, I did want to, in the eight minutes we have left to get to a few other people who have raised their hands. So, uh, we're gonna probably not be able to get to them all, but, uh, we'll give it a try. And, uh, this is the first part of Jason's two part series. Um, I'm also going to put, uh, the link up there to the debate slash conversation we're gonna be having among our scholars with different perspectives. So, um, norm you wanna unmute yourself and chime in. Thank you. <affirmative>
Speaker 15 00:51:29 Sure. Hi, thanks for the opportunity. Um, I always enjoy hearing professor hill and I think this is a, uh, this is just a great opportunity to hear his thoughts. Um, obviously, uh, Russia is a, uh, adversary and one to be watched with tremendous scrutiny and, um, one with whom we ought to deal, um, very firmly. Um, so I, uh, we don't have any alternatives besides sanctions that I can see and, uh, I will share. And I'd be interested to hear, uh, what the response is that I only wish that our president, uh, president Biden, um, for whom I voted, um, I'm always, uh, quick to say, uh, would have made it clear to Putin before all of this destruction that we, that the Western world, that NATO that Europe and the United States would respond to any incursion with, uh, devastating force, um, localized, not at on Russia, but on any, uh, um, military, uh, incursion or any military, uh, invasion.
Speaker 15 00:53:07 I, I thought that's what Biden was doing in those phone, those famous phone calls in the weeks before the invasion. And I, I'm really sad that Ukraine has to endure, um, this, this destruction and blood it's for nothing there. No good will come of it. Um, and I'd be interested to know if anybody agrees with me that, um, that the assurance of, uh, uh, a devastating force, um, would have deterred, uh, Russia's invasion before it happened just out of curiosity, cuz that's what I thought we were doing. That's what I expected Biden to do. And I'm sort of shocked that he didn't do that. And I'm, uh, a bit appalled at the, uh, sort of the, the firm, but insufficiently, uh, um, strong insufficiently aggressive, uh, in sufficiently devastating response that we've given. I just am. Um, I'm, I'm really shocked to see what's going on there. Does anybody think that this could have been avoided with, uh, diplomacy or, you know, a, a, a really serious phone call with Putin before it happened?
Speaker 0 00:54:22 Jason,
Speaker 1 00:54:25 I don't think diplomacy works with this, this kind of person. I mean, this is a, uh, uh, psychopathic bully. I think he should have been bombarded with, um, the MC jets and, and, and, and, and, and we should have supported Poland in, um, their efforts. We should have supplied Ukraine immediately with every single military configuration that was by possible. And I'm going to go a step further and say that we should have a mass us troops along Ukrainian border, um, in a massive and, and, and overpowering way. Ukraine is an autonomous sovereign country. Um, Russia has no business at all. Um, having any business to fear that anymore than let's say we were threatening Canada and France jumped in and, and protected the Canadian border, we would be wrong to be threatening an autonomous state like Canada. So I think if we had just sort of bombarded the borders with us, troops sent the fight of jets, oh, over to the, to Ukraine from Poland, uh, committed, committed, uh, artillery ourselves from the United States to Ukraine. Um, we would've shocked him. We would've scared him and he would've backed down. There's no such thing. The Russians are bullies. Putin is a bully and, uh, diplomacy just, I don't think would've worked one IOT with such a person. You have to act with force and with, um, with complete strength and with no sense of appeasement with someone like futon,
Speaker 16 00:56:04 You know, Jason, when people like you speak, I always wonder if they've actually been to a war zone or have been through any of that. It's very hip, but critical to think that the us or the police of the world, because if it was, if you actually cared about people in sovereignty and all of these things, there are so many countries for you to invade and defend and go to their borders and all of that. So please spare us that, that, that woke BS.
Speaker 0 00:56:30 Okay.
Speaker 1 00:56:31 First of all, it's not,
Speaker 0 00:56:33 Not along the lines of the respectful conversation.
Speaker 1 00:56:36 Well, let me just address this. First of all, I am anything but woke and, um, yes, in the next talk I'm going to give, I am going to talk about the international world order that the United States created after world war II and why we do have a moral responsibility to police parts of the world. And it is in our national self-interest to do that the way, the only way I can spare you, you, the individual, any of this is for you just not to appear on the app, but, uh, don't speak on behalf of any other person about sparing them of anything. Uh, the United States sometimes does act as the police when policing parts of the world is in its national self-interest, and one can trace, uh, quite properly, how policing certain parts of the world that has resorted to thugy is, uh, is in the interest of, of, of America. So there's nothing woke about what I'm saying. I am the last woke person you're like to find on this app or any other app in clubhouse.
Speaker 16 00:57:40 So, Jason, you're saying that you, uh,
Speaker 0 00:57:43 Actually, no, we're AP to time, sorry. Uh, didn't mean to cut you off, but we also, um, skipped the line and we didn't get to Matt. So Matt, um, apologies for that. Thanks everyone for bringing, uh, your questions, your perspective, um, and your insights. This is the, as I mentioned, the first of two conversations on the subject that, uh, professor hill will be, uh, leading, but, uh, we are going to have next week a conversation with, um, adversity of perspectives on our faculty, uh, including professor Richard Salzman, who has been in the room, uh, but not able to speak for this session and, um, as well as robs, who shares to, um, to Jason Hill. So one, and, uh, please check out that link above to join that conversation. Thanks, Jason.
Speaker 1 00:58:47 Thank you very much. Thank you everybody.
